Support NeoGAF

[Golden_Pigeon]

There are lot of baseless beliefs that have been near universal - does that somehow give them undue merit, or make them deserving of more respect? Dragons are a particularly common myth, or sea monsters, or alien visits, or ghosts, demons - etc etc etc. And the radical meaning for the world for all these things exist - did you know aliens built the Pyramids?

I know it doesn't sound appealing to compare the likelihood of Yahweh or whomever's existence to that of any other baseless claim, but no matter how many caveats you throw at it, it's basically the same thing. A completely baseless claim that cannot be substantiated, and is built to be unsubstantiated.

Or, if I try to be more respectful, a faith based claim that cannot be reasoned through like most things in the observable universe, and thus exist with all other paranormal/metaphysical claims.

The fact that Dragon have existed wouldn't have any type of radical consequence for the meaning of our lives. Even if the Aliens had actually made the Pyramid, it cannot even be compared to the consequence of the actual existence of God. The existence or absence of God would change radically the meaning of everything in our life and universe. Most of science-fiction would just be the "new normal" after some centuries, like some aspect of our present life would have been considered crazy science fiction 50 years ago.

Pretending that it's an unsubstantiated claim doesn't make it unsubstantiated.
Anyone who would make such a claim would be dishonest, or unaware of the 2500+ years of different approach to justify the existence of the Divine, in all the forms it was conceptualized. You have to discard the scientific approach, the philosophical approach and the mystical approach that was used and is used to argue in favor of some concept of the Divine, since the dawn of humanity, in all existing cultures.

Saying that what Kant or Aristotle (and virtually all the major philosophers until the 18th century) had to say about the existence of God was unsubstantiated is pretty strong, and i hope you are sufficiently familiar with theirs arguments to make such a claim.

 

[Pantaghana]

The fact that Dragon have existed wouldn't have any type of radical consequence for the meaning of our lives. Even if the Aliens had actually made the Pyramid, it cannot even be compared to the consequence of the actual existence of God. The existence or absence of God would change radically the meaning of everything in our life and universe. Most of science-fiction would just be the "new normal" after some centuries, like some aspect of our present life would have been considered crazy science fiction 50 years ago.

If dragons or aliens existed as they are portrayed in modern media, we would likely have worshiped them as gods.

Pretending that it's an unsubstantiated claim doesn't make it unsubstantiated.

Complete lack of evidence in the divine is what makes it unsubstantiated.

Anyone who would make such a claim would be dishonest, or unaware of the 2500+ years of different approach to justify the existence of the Divine, in all the forms it was conceptualized. You have to discard the scientific approach, the philosophical approach and the mystical approach that was used and is used to argue in favor of some concept of the Divine, since the dawn of humanity, in all existing cultures.

Saying that what Kant or Aristotle (and virtually all the major philosophers until the 18th century) had to say about the existence of God was unsubstantiated is pretty strong, and i hope you are sufficiently familiar with theirs arguments to make such a claim.

Aristotle is one of the philosophers responsible for the "classical elements" (earth, water, air, fire) of ancient Greece that persisted into the 18th century, there were also many variations of that all over the world, many cultures thinking up of a similar system independently, does that mean that the system of classical elements has merit?

While they were certainly great philosophers and thinkers of their time, the simple fact remains, they were working with a fraction of information we have today, and what little they had was often flawed in some way.

 

[massoluk]

It sucks a bit for me because most of the fun festival stuffs and touristy places in my country are religious in nature

 

[RuinerPrime]

I feel like being an atheist is liberating, at least for me. The only part I am envious of is the community stuff(like church and such, not the internet community) I feel like I don't have. I'm sure its it out there.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Aristotle is one of the philosophers responsible for the "classical elements" (earth, water, air, fire) of ancient Greece that persisted into the 18th century, there were also many variations of that all over the world, many cultures thinking up of a similar system independently, does that mean that the system of classical elements has merit?

While they were certainly great philosophers and thinkers of their time, the simple fact remains, they were working with a fraction of information we have today, and what little they had was often flawed in some way.

I was speaking about his rational proof about the existence of God, and he definitely not have invented the classical element thing in Greece it was a cultural thing. Then they influenced a lot of different culture. But you're right, the same basic concept is present in many culture, it's a very archaic way to break down all the creation to a mix of elementals forces. It have it's own genius for his time.

His rational argumentation about God existence is still relevant. As well as the Kalam argument of Imam Ghazali, since reason don't change over time.
The progressive rise of atheism in the european society have nothing to do with new discoveries, but it was a ideological shift due to historical process proper to the West.
It's why it didn't happen in others civilizations facing the same data. Science have nothing to do with refuting God, and i think you can take Neill deGrasse word for it.

And a big part of the philosophers of today still believe in God, the Kantian trend is still pretty strong. Without mentioning the fact that atheists are a minority in the scientific community.

 

[Maebe]

I think the problem is that you're a nihilist, not because you're an atheist

This.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I was speaking about his rational proof about the existence of God, and he definitely not have invented the classical element thing in Greece it was a cultural thing. Then they influenced a lot of different culture. But you're right, the same basic concept is present in many culture, it's a very archaic way to break down all the creation to a mix of elementals forces. It have it's own genius for his time.

His rational argumentation about God existence is still relevant. As well as the Kalam argument of Imam Ghazali, since reason don't change over time.
The progressive rise of atheism in the european society have nothing to do with new discoveries, but it was a ideological shift due to historical process proper to the West.
It's why it didn't happen in others civilizations facing the same data. Science have nothing to do with refuting God, and i think you can take Neill deGrasse word for it.

And a big part of the philosophers of today still believe in God, the Kantian trend is still pretty strong. Without mentioning the fact that atheists are a minority in the scientific community.

Appeal to authority and popularity in the same post, I'm impressed.

It really doesn't matter to me at all if philosophers and scientists believe or not in the existence of god.

Reason surely changes over time as we become more aware of ourselves and the universe that we exist within. Otherwise people would still be knee deep in Cartesian dualism. The Kalam ontological argument is also rather shit from the first premise, even if WLC is apt at debating.

But truthfully all of this is rather meaningless, I could even grant you the existence of a God. What have you gained? It isn't even the fight, you have just begun your marathon of a fight and you are just one step in. Those who believe are not claiming some metaphysical Sagan-esque God, they are claiming a personal God. A God who commands, guides, answers prayers, works not only within the universe but engages with our planet and our lives, and one who grants an afterlife among a plethora of other things.

You have the most uphill battle, not sure why theists try to engage atheists in this manner. Philosophy and science aren't tools for you to use, just stick to faith, cause that is what it is.

Side note, that Tyson video isn't saying what you think it is is saying.

 

[Pantaghana]

I was speaking about his rational proof about the existence of God.

I don't know if we are talking about the same thing, because nothing about his "prime mover" and "unmoved movers" is rational. It's also full of opinions and assertions, but not actual proof.

His rational argumentation about God existence is still relevant. As well as the Kalam argument of Imam Ghazali, since reason don't change over time.

Reason doesn't change over time, and the reasons why the Kalam Cosmological Argument is flawed haven't changed. Even if it wasn't flawed, it would still be assertions and opinions, but not actual proof.

Science have nothing to do with refuting God

God in the pantheistic and deistic sense? No, it doesn't.

The personal God of polytheistic and monotheistic religions? Yes it does, by directly refuting their sacred texts.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

The "meaninglessness of life" is what makes it awesome.

Think about it, you were created by chance, and have all these great things to enjoy, because of that chance. Just take it and seize the moment.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

God in the pantheistic and deistic sense? No, it doesn't.

The personal God of polytheistic and monotheistic religions? Yes it does, by directly refuting their sacred texts.

Nod, and that is because those sacred texts claim things about the material world.

Science would have nothing to do with religion if religion wasn't making clams about the physical world and how it works.

 

[Kinitari]

The fact that Dragon have existed wouldn't have any type of radical consequence for the meaning of our lives. Even if the Aliens had actually made the Pyramid, it cannot even be compared to the consequence of the actual existence of God. The existence or absence of God would change radically the meaning of everything in our life and universe. Most of science-fiction would just be the "new normal" after some centuries, like some aspect of our present life would have been considered crazy science fiction 50 years ago.

Pretending that it's an unsubstantiated claim doesn't make it unsubstantiated.
Anyone who would make such a claim would be dishonest, or unaware of the 2500+ years of different approach to justify the existence of the Divine, in all the forms it was conceptualized. You have to discard the scientific approach, the philosophical approach and the mystical approach that was used and is used to argue in favor of some concept of the Divine, since the dawn of humanity, in all existing cultures.

Saying that what Kant or Aristotle (and virtually all the major philosophers until the 18th century) had to say about the existence of God was unsubstantiated is pretty strong, and i hope you are sufficiently familiar with theirs arguments to make such a claim.

So much of this is your opinion - you think if Dragon's existed it wouldn't have any affect on our lives, if giant lizards flew through the skies breathing fire and granting wishes and shit, it wouldn't be like "oh whatever". You think that would have less of an affect than an intangible God indistinguishable from the natural world as we know it - ie, 'prime mover' (which is a flawed concept that is regularly taken apart).

There really isn't any meaningful difference in the assertion of a prime mover, Yahweh, Odin or a invisible unicorns. What does it matter just how important any of these things would be to any one person or group (a nearly completely subjective assertion) - they are fundamentally baseless claims that exist in the same realm of thought - claims that are designed to be irrefutable and by that same nature, should be given very little value.

If I say there is an invisible Unicorn that dances through the night skies and grants secret wishes that we didn't even know we had, it doesn't matter if it's just me who believes it or 100 people or 1 billion. It doesn't make it any more true, and it doesn't make the claim functionally different than one of leprechauns, dragons or gods.

 

[Chaplain]

The weekly podcast Unbelievable? had a live debate two weeks ago between Ryan Bell & Sean McDowell on ‘Why I am an atheist / Why I am a Christian’.

MP3 Download (right click/save as).
Video link.

I went to this event. Its definitely worth a listen. Both speakers were courteous and rational in their interactions with each other. Many of the things discussed in this thread are discussed in the debate using reason and logic.

Justin presents a live audience edition of the show from Church Everyday in Northridge, California. He’s joined by atheist Ryan Bell, a former Christian pastor who took ‘A Year Without God’ after coming to doubt his faith, and Sean McDowell a Christian thinker who tells his own journey of doubt and coming to a conviction that Christianity is true.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Reason doesn't change over time, and the reasons why the Kalam Cosmological Argument is flawed haven't changed. Even if it wasn't flawed, it would still be assertions and opinions, but not actual proof.

It's a rational proof, and it's not flawed at all. The basic "refutation" ("If every cause need a cause, how the first cause is without a cause?") come from people unable to understand the argument in the first place.

The personal God of polytheistic and monotheistic religions? Yes it does, by directly refuting their sacred texts.

No, it dosen't since the sacred texts were never meant to be read as a book of science. Theory of Evolution and Non-geocentric model of the universe were mentioned in islamic history and theologians never flinched about it.

Modern fundamentalism read the Bible the same way atheists polemicists does, and it's why we get aberration like young-earth theory etc... but this is have nothing to do with serious theology. These anti-science guys are the main promoters of atheism.

And we are speaking about the notion of the Divine itself, the personal God reveal itself by revelation and it's true that you need to make a kind of leap of faith to accept it.
If this leap wasn't an effort to be made, why would the believers being recompensed for being believers ?

But the acceptation of God as the Creator of the universe can be perfectly demonstrated only by rational arguments and empirical arguments (like pattern and harmony that you find in Creation). Then if you accept that such a Force exist and is able to create human consciousness, it's not such a big leap of faith to assume that this Force would communicate with us.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

So much of this is your opinion - you think if Dragon's existed it wouldn't have any affect on our lives, if giant lizards flew through the skies breathing fire and granting wishes and shit, it wouldn't be like "oh whatever". You think that would have less of an affect than an intangible God indistinguishable from the natural world as we know it - ie, 'prime mover' (which is a flawed concept that is regularly taken apart).

There really isn't any meaningful difference in the assertion of a prime mover, Yahweh, Odin or a invisible unicorns. What does it matter just how important any of these things would be to any one person or group (a nearly completely subjective assertion) - they are fundamentally baseless claims that exist in the same realm of thought - claims that are designed to be irrefutable and by that same nature, should be given very little value.

If I say there is an invisible Unicorn that dances through the night skies and grants secret wishes that we didn't even know we had, it doesn't matter if it's just me who believes it or 100 people or 1 billion. It doesn't make it any more true, and it doesn't make the claim functionally different than one of leprechauns, dragons or gods.

I am speaking about the actual notion of Divine and not some kind of "man in the sky" kind of mythology.
So yes, it's way more consequential for human experience than the existence of lizard breathing fire.

Our discussion was initially about why being atheist is a active posture and not a simple indifference and i was pointing out the universality of the concept of the Divine throughout human history. It was not my point that God exist because most of people believe in it. Assertion of reality is indeed not a democracy.

 

[Markoman]

OP, try oportunism, works with everything just like Vodka.
If god ever shows up again, you can go "Told ya all" and start from scratch.

 

[Kinitari]

I am speaking about the actual notion of Divine and not some kind of "man in the sky" kind of mythology.
So yes, it's way more consequential for human experience than the existence of lizard breathing fire.

Our discussion was initially about why being atheist is a active posture and not a simple indifference and i was pointing out the universality of the concept of the Divine throughout human history. It was not my point that God exist because most of people believe in it. Assertion of reality is indeed not a democracy.

Going against the grain, not believing what everyone else believes doesn't make it an active posture, that's if I even understand what that means, I might not. I think what you're saying is that because everyone else believes in God, the act of not believing in God is somehow functionally different than not believing in any other thing.

What are the criteria before it isn't functionally different? What if only 49% of the world actively believed in God, would it still be an active posturing? Maybe the history though would make up for that. What if we went another.... 1000 years with less than half the world believing in God - would it now no longer be an active posturing, and be comparable to not believing in anything else?

I hope you see my point here. Your subjective caveats for differentiating the lack of belief in one concept from the lack of belief in another are to unwieldily to be practically used - and why even make them? Is it because you find the idea of comparing disbelief in God to disbelief in Unicorns insulting, or because you think that the amount of people who believe or how long it's believed, or how grand the belief is actually changes what disbelieving means?

 

[Khaz]

No, it dosen't since the sacred texts were never meant to be read as a book of science.

Please tell all the believers how their sacred texts are meant to be read. You realise that there is an infinity of different understandings, and each one of those make their own little Church? And it's nothing modern either, it has happened since the beginning of sacred texts. Literal reading of sacred texts is nothing new.

 

[iamblades]

I am speaking about the actual notion of Divine and not some kind of "man in the sky" kind of mythology.
So yes, it's way more consequential for human experience than the existence of lizard breathing fire.

Our discussion was initially about why being atheist is a active posture and not a simple indifference and i was pointing out the universality of the concept of the Divine throughout human history. It was not my point that God exist because most of people believe in it. Assertion of reality is indeed not a democracy.

It's not universal though, Atheism has been an accepted part of religions like Hinduism and Buddhism from the very beginning. There were quite a few ancient greek philosophers that were atheist, some like Diagoras was explicitly atheist, and others like Democritus were effectively so, as the divine had absolutely no role in their philosophy, which attempted to be entirely materialistic.

Atheism is not some new thing that just cropped up in the last couple hundred years. It seems that way in the western world, because it's only been since the enlightenment that you could talk about it openly without being burned at the stake, but if you go back through time it has always been there.

Hell, the 'Islamic' golden age was largely the result of atheist scholars like Abu Isa al-Warraq and Al-Maʿarri, though a thousand years of theocracy has erased most traces of their work.

Dawkins and others have explained plenty how there can be an evolutionary reason for the belief in the divine to be so widespread(not 'universal', the evolutionary psych theory of why religion is popular also explains why it seems like there have always been non-believers), but the important thing to understand is that the popularity of a belief has absolutely no correlation to it's accuracy.

 

[BuggyDClown]

I think the problem is that you're a nihilist, not because you're an atheist

Yeah. This.

If anything as an atheist living under any religion appears to me to make life seem wasted. Especially if you believe in an eternity of afterlife. It makes none of this seem important if that nonsense were real.

It's all how you choose to look at the world and life.

 

[Pantaghana]

It's a rational proof, and it's not flawed at all. The basic "refutation" ("If every cause need a cause, how the first cause is without a cause?") come from people unable to understand the argument in the first place.

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Assertion without proof. Another problem is quantum mechanics being really, really weird; there are plenty of phenomena where all sorts of stuff happens without a cause so there is proof that not everything has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Another assertion without proof. The universe as we understand it today began with the Big Bang, but what preceded that is unknown, if the universe truly has a beginning is beyond the scope of our current understanding of the universe.

 

[Concept17]

Sounds like you need some Carl Sagan or Tyson in your life.

Life is beautiful, but you have to gain the perspective before you realize it.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Please tell all the believers how their sacred texts are meant to be read. You realise that there is an infinity of different understandings, and each one of those make their own little Church? And it's nothing modern either, it has happened since the beginning of sacred texts. Literal reading of sacred texts is nothing new.

This is precisely the point: you cannot limit the meaning of religious scripture to a literalist approach. In general classical theology acknowledge this, that you have different level of meaning and if a superior level of meaning (the exterior literal meaning) is contradicted by demonstrative proof, you got to accept the verse as a metaphor.

You can go to any religious nutcase who believe that the earth is 6.000 years old and if you point some verse that go exteriorly against his general interpretation of the Bible, he'll tell you that it's metaphorical. So he is making the active choice to NOT interpret metaphorically that and the other part of Scripture. At the end of the day, he is not more fanatical or backward as anybody out there, he making is own choice to understand scripture in a particular way.

If you want to understand classical muslim hermeneutics and theology, i can recommend this great book.

 

[daTRUballin]

This thread is pretty interesting because as a Christian I've always imagined being an atheist would feel just like what the OP is describing.

 

[Not]

This thread is pretty interesting because as a Christian I've always imagined being an atheist would feel just like what the OP is describing.

You should try it out then; experience with both might help you become more resolute in a single belief.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Assertion without proof. Another problem is quantum mechanics being really, really weird; there are plenty of phenomena where all sorts of stuff happens without a cause so there is proof that not everything has a cause.

It's a little different, actually. It's not because we cannot see the cause of certains events that it's the proof that it doesn't have any causes. Modern science change radically it's way to understand the world every 30 years so i won't make any blunt statement about the causality law being dead because we are unable to understand certains things. And making some research about the issue of causality and quantum physics give you the impression that the idea that the causality law was killed by quantum physics don't seem to reach a consensus in the scientific community.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Another assertion without proof. The universe as we understand it today began with the Big Bang, but what preceded that is unknown, if the universe truly has a beginning is beyond the scope of our current understanding of the universe.

We don't know if anything actually preceded it, so if we take empirical date, we must accept that it had an actual beginning.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Hell, the 'Islamic' golden age was largely the result of atheist scholars like Abu Isa al-Warraq and Al-Maʿarri, though a thousand years of theocracy has erased most traces of their work.

What ?
Not at all, where did you get that ?
The Islamic Golden Age start 150 years before Warraq and those two individuals had very little influence.
If anything, they are the proofs of the intellectual freedom of the time with the House of Wisdom doing public debate with peoples of any kind of beliefs.

It's actually the muslim "theocracy" who started it, when the abbasid rulers started to pay any translation to the arabic it's weight in pure gold.

This guy رحمه الله is a lot more representative of the Islamic Golden Age and it's legacy, but he is the direct product of the early islamic civilization. Without the political power stance on science and knowledge, those achievements would be impossible. And they were directly instructed by the Quranic view of Nature, who call the Universe a Deployed Book which study lead to God.

 

[BocoDragon]

This thread is pretty interesting because as a Christian I've always imagined being an atheist would feel just like what the OP is describing.

My theory is that people of various religions tend to associate all of their existential comfort with their religious ideas, and presume that the lack of religion = no existential comfort.

Atheists can (not always, as per the OP) have a great sense of existential comfort. That sense of "wow, the universe is amazing, and I feel happy and safe and at peace in this existence" can still be there even if you don't believe there's a big boss propping it all up.

 

[Pantaghana]

This thread is pretty interesting because as a Christian I've always imagined being an atheist would feel just like what the OP is describing.

There are plenty of religious people that feel like OP, pessimism and depression are not exclusive to atheists.

 

[Always-honest]

This thread is pretty interesting because as a Christian I've always imagined being an atheist would feel just like what the OP is describing.

Well, even if you are religious, evolution and other natural processes are still responsible for your amazement. Even if you have a half-assed version of some religion where you believe a god just set up the conditions for it to happen.

The world, and the universe it is in, is amazing. You literally lack imagination if that doesn't wow you in any way. If you don't fully understand it, fine. Neither do we, fully. But to just make up a convenient solution to not have to worry about the answers seems weird to me. Especially when parts of that answer need to be scrapped when science disproves them and moves things forward..

 

[Polioliolio]

This thread is pretty interesting because as a Christian I've always imagined being an atheist would feel just like what the OP is describing.

Because such a thought grants you some satisfaction in knowing if you were ever without faith, how miserable you'd be.

Like in the movie God is not Dead..
The boy "proves" to the Atheist professor that God exists, by getting the professor to admit that he hates what God did to his mother, who died of cancer or something. This is the movie's big "take that" moment, and yet all it proves is that the professor isn't Atheist at all.

.. But this is an example of how Christians explain Atheism.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Because such a thought grants you some satisfaction in knowing if you were ever without faith, how miserable you'd be.

Like in the movie God is not Dead..
The boy "proves" to the Atheist professor that God exists, by getting the professor to admit that he hates what God did to his mother, who died of cancer or something. This is the movie's big "take that" moment, and yet all it proves is that the professor isn't Atheist at all.

.. But this is an example of how Christians explain Atheism.

While I've never known one in person to express this opinion, I have seen a lot of sentiment online from Christian that atheists "don't exist", and really are just angry at God.

It's crazy to me that they literally cannot fathom not believing when they so readily don't believe in any god but the Christian one.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

Without mentioning the fact that atheists are a minority in the scientific community.

??? Isn't this backward? Don't studies say the opposite, that most scientists are atheists? 51% of scientists are either religious or agnostic but that's for the US.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

??? Isn't this backward? Don't studies say the opposite, that most scientists are atheists? 51% of scientists are either religious or agnostic but that's for the US.

http://news.rice.edu/2015/12/03/fir...d-science-no-not-all-scientists-are-atheists/

It's interesting that in some part of the world, scientifics are actually more religious than the average population.

I found this part particularly interesting:

When asked about terms of conflict between religion and science, Ecklund noted that only a minority of scientists in each regional context believe that science and religion are in conflict. In the U.K. – one of the most secular countries studied – only 32 percent of scientists characterized the science-faith interface as one of conflict. In the U.S., this number was only 29 percent. And 25 percent of Hong Kong scientists, 27 percent of Indian scientists and 23 percent of Taiwanese scientists believed science and religion can coexist and be used to help each other.

- See more at: http://news.rice.edu/2015/12/03/fir...scientists-are-atheists/#sthash.I2c3sBfG.dpuf

 

[Septic360]

Try ayahuasca.

Watch DMT: The Spirit Molecule.

After that I'm sure you'll get your answer 😊

 

[Jombie]

Why would you want there to be a god or an afterlife? Be glad you're free and don't have to partake in a master-slave relationship, or worry about whether or not you're a good enough person to not suffer eternally after death.

 

[Stinkles]

I don't hate it, because of the euphoria.

 

[GraveHorizon]

Sounds like the OP needs to get super high and ponder existence.

 

[Adam_Vania]

i feel like the most popular form of atheism is really only useful in describing a very specific form of belief. it is a reaction against a very particular form of Christian fundamentalism. often atheists compare themselves to selective polytheism, fooling themselves into thinking all religions are basically the same. this is an anti-intellectual stance. ironic too since the atheist tends to cling to intellectualism.

the truth is these religions, these texts, the social structures, the countless artworks and masterpieces of architecture and the musical form, all of that is there for you to peruse, to study, to interpret, to deride.

visiting Egypt and seeing the pyramids and tombs first-hand gave me a unique perspective on their religion. i was stunned at the very real and physical works that i saw first-hand. the strangeness of the pharaoh's chamber, itself an artificial 90-degree cubic chamber with enhanced sonic resonance, housed in a pyramid dating thousands of years old and basically a crumbling mess on the outside, up close. we saw the granite quarry where they carved giant obelisks WHOLE in one solid piece using nothing but a stone and a wooden stake. the teacher suggested aliens as the best current theory.

the point is i could have just not bothered with any of this. i could have said "I'm an atheist, i don't believe in that stuff" and just stayed home. yippie.

 

[kavanf1]

i feel like the most popular form of atheism is really only useful in describing a very specific form of belief. it is a reaction against a very particular form of Christian fundamentalism. often atheists compare themselves to selective polytheism, fooling themselves into thinking all religions are basically the same. this is an anti-intellectual stance. ironic too since the atheist tends to cling to intellectualism.

the truth is these religions, these texts, the social structures, the countless artworks and masterpieces of architecture and the musical form, all of that is there for you to peruse, to study, to interpret, to deride.

visiting Egypt and seeing the pyramids and tombs first-hand gave me a unique perspective on their religion. i was stunned at the very real and physical works that i saw first-hand. the strangeness of the pharaoh's chamber, itself an artificial 90-degree cubic chamber with enhanced sonic resonance, housed in a pyramid dating thousands of years old and basically a crumbling mess on the outside, up close. we saw the granite quarry where they carved giant obelisks WHOLE in one solid piece using nothing but a stone and a wooden stake. the teacher suggested aliens as the best current theory.

the point is i could have just not bothered with any of this. i could have said "I'm an atheist, i don't believe in that stuff" and just stayed home. yippie.

Just because people don't place any credence in religion doesn't mean they don't appreciate the context religion has had in history, or the impact it has had on architecture and art. I think you're reaching for a high ground here that has little to do with atheism and more to do with people being (willfully or otherwise) ignorant about things.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

http://news.rice.edu/2015/12/03/fir...d-science-no-not-all-scientists-are-atheists/

It's interesting that in some part of the world, scientifics are actually more religious than the average population.

I found this part particularly interesting:

This literally says that most scientists are not religious, except in a few (very religious) countries. And I can't find the actual study either.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

This literally says that most scientists are not religious, except in a few (very religious) countries. And I can't find the actual study either.

My original comment was :

"Without mentioning the fact that atheists are a minority in the scientific community."

Being atheist is not the same as being non-religious, you can be non-religious without being an atheist.

So yes, most of scientists, even in the West, are not atheist.
But most fundamentalist among the atheists are still convinced that science endorse atheism.

 

[spekkeh]

Your deduction doesn't follow. Yes you can be nonreligious but still a theist, that doesn't mean most scientists are. Most scientists are most definitely atheist.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Your deduction doesn't follow. Yes you can be nonreligious but still a theist, that doesn't mean most scientists are. Most scientists are most definitely atheist.

Please provide a source to back that up, every study i find say otherwise.

 

[spekkeh]

Please provide a source to back that up, every study i find say otherwise.

The same research you linked earlier.

Unsurprisingly, Ecklund found that 64 percent of scientists are either atheists (34%) or agnostic (30%) — about 10 times their number in the general U.S. population. Only nine percent of scientists say they have no doubt about God’s existence (vs. 63% of the general public), but a surprising 27 percent of scientists have some belief in God, ranging from having some doubts, but affirming belief (9%), believing in God “sometimes” (5%), or believing in a higher power that’s not God (8%)

23% are theists, the rest are..

Jeez that religious writer can't count.

 

[Sorc3r3r]

Ever since i remember, i never really believed in god. I always thought it was an absurd idea. I also thought that i'm among the "smart" ones or at least the lucky ones who are able to see through the bullshit.

But as i grow older i realize that i'm the unlucky one instead. Because i denied myself from a wonderful bed time story where god and his angels will always watch over everyone or something and that there is a deeper meaning to everything and that no matter how cruel something looks, it's always according to god's good plan and that i will live forever in some form so i won't miss anything, etc.

Instead i am now the most pessimistic person, i think there is no reason for anything to exist, yet i don't like the idea of not existing either because nothingness seems even more meaningless if that makes any sense. It doesn't help that my life has been miserable the last 6-7 years or so. So the whole "live your life to the fullest" atheist motto doesn't really work on me.

Sure, religious people have hell to worry about but that's just something to keep things interesting. That's the whole point of religion. It's interesting. It has a meaning. Nothingness has no meaning. I hate the idea of death because of it. And i actually feel very jealous of people who really believe in god without knowingly kidding themselves. I wish i could do too. But my sense and logic always tell me that existence is a stupid mystery that nobody will ever solve and at some point nobody sentient will exist to know about it.

I wonder if others have similar thoughts?

If the bolded sentence sums up your stance I think you are an agnostic more than an atheist, but in the end it's not so important.

I can only suggest you to try to live following the gospel to see if will have an impact on your life or not, even if you don't believe.

In the end you have nothing to lose.

 

[blame space]

I'm an atheist and i can't find meaning where others can.. help!!

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

The same research you linked earlier.


23% are theists, the rest are..

Jeez that religious writer can't count.

You don't have to be rude, and no, agnosticism is not atheism.

So you can say that most scientist don't affirm the existence of God, but not that they are atheists.
Inventing your own definition doesn't really sum up as an argument.

 

[spekkeh]

Yes agnosticism is atheism. The Greek term atheism literally means without theism, without believing in a god. Agnosticism is simply a more specific position of atheism. That so few people self identify with atheism is because it is a negative position (it defines you by something you are not, as opposed to agnosticism, which is a positive statement--I myself am for instance an atheist but really a metaphysical noncognitivist) and because some absolutely vile books say atheists are immoral and should be beheaded. If you think that is rude, your priorities are wrong.

 

[stufte]

I'm an atheist but I don't really think about it any more. It doesn't dictate my life and I rarely talk about my beliefs to anyone. No one cares what I believe at this point in my life.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

The rude part was that one:

"Jeez that religious writer can't count."

And, again, you can come up with every definition you want, agnosticism is not atheism. If you have doubt about the existence of God, or think that the question of God existence cannot be solved, you're not an atheist.

The greeks use to use the term against who they perceived as impious individuals who were insulting to theirs Gods. A jew or a zoroastrian would have been called an atheist.